Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/921,815

Modular Underwater Pumped-Storage Power Plant Reservoir

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Oct 27, 2022
Examiner
ORTEGA, JOSEPH
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Horst Schmidt-Böcking
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
300 granted / 415 resolved
+4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
437
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.4%
-7.6% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Response to Arguments With respect to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant states “A claim rejection on the ground of indefiniteness is only appropriate if, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the allegedly offending claim terminology, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.1 The broadest reasonable interpretation is "an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the applicant states “In Schmidt, on the other hand, the individual pressure vessels (20) do not have their own pump turbines. Instead, Schmidt discloses a centralized system where multiple pressure vessels (20) are connected via a "main passage" (42) to a "common generator" and a "common pump". The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claim recites “at least one pressure vessel”. Therefore, the centralized common generator and a common pump is regarded to the at least one pressure vessel. Claim Objections Claim 25 should recite “The wherein the at least one other pressure vessel module is in a modular arrangement with one another and independent operation from one another, each of the at least one other pressure vessel module Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 13, the applicant recites “the underwater pumped storage power plant reservoir can be operated in such a way that via the turbine and the pump, or via the pump turbine, electrical energy is generated when water is let in from the flooded ground depression into the pressure vessel modules and electrical energy is stored used when water is let out from the pressure vessel modules into the flooded ground depression for energy storage”. Electrical energy is not generated by a pump and turbine alone. Electrical energy is generated by generator moved by turbines. Moreover, electrical energy is stored by batteries, the applicant does not recite how the electrical energy is “stored”. Therefore, the claim in vague and indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (US 2015/0361948). Regarding Claim 15, Schmidt discloses a pressure vessel module [6], for modular arrangement with at least one other pressure vessel module [6] and independent operation therefrom, in a dry ground depression and/or for sinking in an already flooded ground depression [8] (FIG. 8), comprising: an outer wall [“outer wall” on each element 6 on the right/left side] having at least one flow opening for letting in and/or letting out water [by 43 – In its interior, the base body 40 has side passages 43 for connecting the accumulator 20 (see FIG. 9) to a main passage 42, which in turn is connected to the turbine 16 as well as the pump 36 in the embodiment shown], such that the pressure vessel module can be filled with water independently of the at least one other pressure vessel module [by 26 – A shutoff valve 26 is built into each side passage 43 so that the pressure vessels 20 installed at each of the connection couplings 23] and/or pumped empty independently of the at least one other pressure vessel module when the ground depression is flooded with water [by 26 – The shutoff valves 26 in the side passages 43 of the base body 40 also make it possible to use a universal base part in which individual connection couplings 23 remain unused in the event that only a smaller accumulator volume is required, so that the base bodies can be produced in large-scale production and can nevertheless be adapted to the applicable application area] (FIG. 8, ¶ [0089]), wherein the pressure vessel module [6] is provided with its own turbine [16] and pump [36] (FIG. 8) OR. Regarding Claim 16, Schmidt discloses the pressure vessel module according to claim 15 [see rejected Claim 15 above], wherein the pressure vessel module is shaped in such a way that the outer wall of the pressure vessel module can be arranged face-to-face adjacent, to one or more further identically formed pressure vessel modules (as shown in FIG. 8). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 & 14 allowed. Claims 17-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469)295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TULSIDAS C. PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 27, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Mar 31, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jun 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601290
CONVERTING POTENTIAL ENERGY FROM A MIXTURE OF FLUIDS INTO ELECTRIC POWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595780
JOHNSON EJECTOR WATER AND POWER GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577885
OXYGEN-LED POWER GENERATING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580356
METHOD OF ASSEMBLING AN ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR AND AN ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571373
OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR INSTALLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+15.7%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 415 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month